The Alabama Supreme Court last week gave new hope to those with an interest in keeping state lawmakers off the payrolls of two-year colleges.

And by those with an interest, we mean taxpayers.

Those of us footing the bill for the community colleges and the Legislature got the shaft coming and going because of lawmakers collecting paychecks from various campuses.

But the state Board of Education's attempt to end the abuse -- and eventually to ban any employment of lawmakers in two-year colleges -- was met with furious opposition from the lawmakers themselves and from the Alabama Education Association.

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick sided with the challengers, saying the school board hadn't met the requirements of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the rules on "double-dipping." The Supreme Court last week ruled the school board didn't have to follow that act and sent the case back to Hardwick.

The 8-0 ruling doesn't mean the double-dipping rules won't face other challenges. The AEA said it intends to keep fighting. But at least for now, the school board's policy has carried the day.

Taxpayers should be more than pleased.

Sure, some lawmakers had bona fide two-year college jobs even before they were elected, and some of them tried to be scrupulous about their duties. But even they were gone from campus much of the time, and there were built-in conflicts of interest. How is a supervisor going to treat an employee who votes on the state's education budget?

And if the best-case scenario was bad, imagine the more plentiful rotten scenarios.

The Birmingham News reported on lawmakers who got their jobs because of their elected positions, rarely if ever showed up for actual work and had nothing to show for years of supposed employment.

Others appeared to be getting paid by a college to serve campus interests in the Legislature.

A number of lawmakers gave up college jobs after the scandal hit. But the school board is right to try to ensure lawmakers stay off two-year college payrolls. The potential for abuse is too great.

The Supreme Court ruling offers hope the double-dipping ban -- and taxpayers -- will come out of this fight on top.